Advertisement

International HRA Empirical Study, Overall Methodology and HAMMLAB Results

  • Salvatore Massaiu
  • Andreas Bye
  • Per Øivind Braarud
  • Helena Broberg
  • Michael Hildebrandt
  • Vinh N. Dang
  • Erasmia Lois
  • John A. Forester
Conference paper

Abstract

The International HRA Empirical Study addresses the need for assessing HRA (Human Reliability Analysis) methods in light of human performance data. The study is based on a comparison of observed performance in HAMMLAB simulator trials with the outcomes predicted in HRA analyses. The project goal is to develop an empirically-based understanding of the performance, strengths, and weaknesses of a number of different HRA methods. This chapter presents the overall methodology for the initial assessment study (the pilot study), provides an overview of the HAMMLAB results and presents insights from the initial assessment.

Keywords

Steam Generator Operational Expression Secondary Radiation Core Damage Scenario Variant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the many participants in this study, including the control room crews, the simulator observation team, the HRA teams, the assessment team, and independent reviewers. This study is a collaborative effort of the HRP research programme and, in particular, Halden’s signatory organizations who provided the HRA teams, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), the Swiss Federal Nuclear Inspectorate (DIS-Vertrag Nr. 82610), and the U.S. Electric Power Research Institute. In addition, parts of this work were performed at Sandia National Laboratories and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) with funding from the USNRC. Sandia is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. INL is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Battelle Energy Alliance LLC, for the United States Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517. The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the authors and not those of the authors’ organizations or of the U.S. NRC.

References

  1. Bell J, Swain A (1983) A procedure for conducting a human reliability analysis for nuclear power plants, NUREG/CR-2254. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Braarud PØ, Broberg H, Massaiu S (2007) Performance shaping factors and masking experiment 2006: project status and planned analysis. In: Proceedings of the Enlarged Halden Programme Group meeting, Storefjell. OECD Halden Reactor Project, Halden, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  3. Forester J, Bley D, Cooper S, Lois E, Siu N, Kolaczkowski A, Wreathall J (2004) Expert elicitation approach for performing ATHEANA quantification. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 83(2):207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Forester J, Kolaczkowski A, Cooper S, Bley D, Lois E (2007) ATHEANA user’s guide, NUREG-1880. US NRC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Gertman D, Blackman H, Marble J, Byers J, Haney L, Smith C (2005) The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method, NUREG/CR-6883. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Hallbert B, Boring R, Gertman D, Dudenhoeffer D, Whaley A, Marble J, Joe J, Lois E (2006) Human Event Repository and Analysis (HERA) system—overview NUREG/CR-6903 vol 1, INL/EXT-06-11528. Idaho National Laboratory for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Elsevier Science Ltd, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Holmberg JE, Pyy P (2000) An expert judgement based method for human reliability analysis of Forsmark 1 and 2 probabilistic safety assessment. In: Kondo S, Furuta K (eds) Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 5), Osaka, vol 2/4. Universal Academy Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  9. Julius J, Grobbelaar J, Spiegel D, Rahn F (2005) The EPRI HRA Calculator® user’s manual, version 3.0, product ID #1008238. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  10. Jung W et al (2005) A standard HRA method for PSA in nuclear power plant; K-HRA method, KAERI/TR-2961/2005Google Scholar
  11. Kim JW, Jung W, Park J (2005) A systematic approach to analysing errors of commission from diagnosis failure in accident progression. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 89(2):137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolaczkowski A, Forester J, Lois E, Cooper S (2005) Good practices for implementing human reliability analysis (NUREG-1792). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Le Bot P, Bieder C, Cara F (1999) MERMOS, a second generation HRA method: what it does and doesn’t do. In: Proceedings of the international topical meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA ’99), vol II. American Nuclear Society, Washington, DC, pp 852–880Google Scholar
  14. Le Bot P, Pesme H, Ruiz F (2002) Methodological validation of MERMOS through 160 analyses, Probabilistic Safety Assessment, PSA’02, Detroit, MIGoogle Scholar
  15. Lois E, Dang VN, Forester J, Broberg H, Massaiu S, Hildebrandt M, Braarud PØ, Parry GW, Julius J, Boring R, Männistö I, Bye A (2009) International HRA empirical study—description of overall approach and first pilot results from comparing HRA methods to simulator data (HWR-844/NUREG/IA-0216 vol 1). OECD Halden Reactor Project/US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Halden, Norway/Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Nuclear Energy Agency (2000) Errors of Commission in Probabilistic Risk Assessment (NEA/CSNI/R(2000)17). Report of the Working Group on Risk Assessment (WGRisk) of the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  17. Parry GW et al (1992) An approach to the analysis of operator actions in PRA (EPRI TR-100259). Electric Power Research Institute, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  18. Parry GW, Holy J, Kucera L (1996) Human reliability analysis—analysis file 6T47AF01, NPP Temelin PSA documentation, Revision 1Google Scholar
  19. Reer B, Dang VN (2007) The Commission Errors Search and Assessment (CESA) method, PSI report Nr. 07-03. Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland. ISSN 1019-0643Google Scholar
  20. Reer B, Dang VN, Hirschberg S (2004) The CESA method and its application in a plant-specific pilot study on errors of commission. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 83(2):187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Swain AD (1987) Accident sequence evaluation program human reliability analysis procedure (NUREG/CR-4772/SAND86-1996). Sandia National Laboratories for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Swain AD, Guttmann HE (1983) Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications (NUREG/CR-1278/SAND80-0200). Sandia National Laboratories for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. US NRC (2000) Technical basis and implementation guidelines for a technique for human event analysis (ATHEANA) (NUREG-1624, Rev. 1). US NRC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Wakefield D, Parry GW, Hannaman G, Spurgin A (1992) SHARP1: a revised systematic human action reliability procedure, EPRI TR-101711, tier 2. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams JC (1986) HEART—a proposed method for assessing and reducing human error. In: Proceedings of the 9th advances in reliability technology symposium, University of Bradford, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore Massaiu
    • 1
  • Andreas Bye
    • 1
  • Per Øivind Braarud
    • 1
  • Helena Broberg
    • 1
  • Michael Hildebrandt
    • 1
  • Vinh N. Dang
    • 2
  • Erasmia Lois
    • 3
  • John A. Forester
    • 4
  1. 1.OECD Halden Reactor ProjectInstitutt for EnergiteknikkHaldenNorway
  2. 2.Paul Scherrer InstituteVilligenSwitzerland
  3. 3.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington DCUSA
  4. 4.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations